The House of Commons (Great Britain) recently passed the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which keeps the time limit on abortions at twenty-four weeks (in spite of hopes that it would be lowered), authorizes the creation of “savior siblings (brothers and sisters deliberately created in a lab solely for their organs to be harvested for use by the already-born), and allows for the creation of animal-human hybrids. Taki's Magazine has this article by Andrew Cusack up which begs the Crown to intervene and cast its veto for the first time in 320 years. It has the right, and the duty to so do.
If not over this soul - rending issue, when?
QUOTE Under the British constitution, a bill only becomes a law when it has received the assent of all three components of the British Parliament: the Commons, the Lords, and the Crown. The last time the Crown withheld consent was in 1708 when Queen Anne refused to sign the Scottish Militia Bill. Since that time, it has been an unspoken convention that should the Crown object to a piece of legislation, it should privately inform its ministers before the legislation is voted upon in order for it to be withdrawn, thus preventing the scandal of the Crown and the Commons appearing to be in disagreement. Despite this convention, however, the Crown still has the right to withhold consent, but merely neglects to exercise that right. UNQUOTE
A comment from a reader raises the question
QUOTE Is not the Queen of England also the head of the Church of England?
If so, then does she not have the obligation, from an ethical perspective, to oppose legislation that is contrary to dogma, morals or the natural law? UNQUOTE